More Than a Bad Call: The AFL Appeals Board and the League's Homophobia Issue

Two years ago, a string of homophobic comments by players across multiple rounds of AFL left the league in disarray, confronted with a genuine homophobia problem. In the wake of that, I wrote an article about the need for harsher sentencing and how the current penalties were ineffective. Last year, the issue reared its head again, with Adelaide Crows player Izak Rankine embroiled in the issue on the brink of Finals. Writing again then, I discussed how the AFL disciplinary system needed greater transparency in the reasoning for decisions made.

It appears the AFL has listened. With the latest incident concerning (again) Lance Collard being escalated to the AFL Appeals Board, the Board released a brief set of reasons for its decision, providing the very transparency people have been crying out for.[1]

And yet, this may be a case of being careful what you wish for. It is this exact transparency that has left the AFL world fuming, ultimately culminating in the dismissal of the AFL Appeals Board Chair, Will Houghton KC.[2]

What actually happened?

St Kilda forward Lance Collard was found guilty by the AFL Disciplinary Tribunal of using a homophobic slur against a Frankston Dolphins opponent during a VFL match[3] – his second such offence in three seasons, having received a six-match ban in 2024 after admitting to the same conduct.[4] The Tribunal imposed a nine-match suspension, the harshest penalty yet for homophobic language and consistent with the escalating trend in penalties. St Kilda appealed because Collard maintained his innocence. The Appeals Board, chaired by Will Houghton KC,[5] upheld the guilty finding but slashed the ban to four matches, with two served and two suspended.[6] This left Collard with a mere slap on the wrist and a punishment which pales in comparison to his six-week suspension for his first offence in 2024. The reasoning provided was so unsatisfactory that AFL CEO Andrew Dillon issued a public statement "specifically rejecting" the Board's reasoning, and the AFL subsequently terminated Houghton's appointment.[7]

What are the powers of the AFL Appeals Board?

Appealing a Tribunal decision to the AFL Appeals Board can only be made on the following grounds:

• An error of law that had a material impact on the decision of the Tribunal has occurred;

• The decision of the Tribunal is so unreasonable that no Tribunal acting reasonably could have come to that decision having regard to the evidence before it;

• The classification of the offence by the Tribunal was manifestly excessive or inadequate; or

• The sanction imposed by the Tribunal was manifestly excessive or inadequate.[8]

It was this last point which was the grounds for St Kilda appealing the Tribunal’s outcome – that the nine-week sanction initially imposed was “manifestly excessive”.

Why the Appeals Board got it wrong

St Kilda argued that the Tribunal’s sanction was “manifestly excessive”, with which the AFL Appeals Board agreed.[9] The reasoning presented was alarming on many fronts; however, two key flaws stand out.

First, the "commonplace" remark. The Board noted that:

...football is a hard game. It is highly competitive, particularly at its higher levels. It is commonplace that players can employ language from time to time which is racist, sexist or homophobic whilst on the field.[10]

This was not merely poor wording but was deployed as a mitigating factor in reducing the sanction. If the prevalence of homophobic language becomes a reason to soften penalties, the AFL's entire deterrence framework collapses. Excusing objectively unacceptable behaviour because it supposedly is “commonplace” fails to address the problem itself.

Second, the "crippling" penalty argument. The Board found the nine-match ban would "finish him off as a player of professional football" and treated this as grounds for reduction.[11] But this reasoning is circular for a repeat offender. Collard received six matches in 2024 for the same conduct. He was given education, support, and a second chance. The escalation to nine matches was the direct and foreseeable consequence of reoffending. Accepting that career impact justifies reducing a penalty for recidivism means repeat offenders can never receive harsher sanctions than first-time offenders, because the cumulative toll will always be "crippling." This inverts the very logic of escalation.

The real-world consequences of decisions like this one should not be understated. It took more than 120 years for the AFL to produce its first openly LGBTQIA+ professional male player, with Mitch Brown coming out as bisexual in August 2025,[12] and Leigh Ryswyk becoming the first to come out as gay in March 2026[13] – but both did so only after their playing careers had ended. When the Appeals Board treats homophobic language as "commonplace", takes into consideration whether or not the victim was offended (as opposed to considering the broader impact on the LGBTQIA+ community) and reduces the penalty for using it, it reinforces exactly the environment that prevented Brown and Ryswyk from coming out for the entirety of their playing careers. With Brisbane Lions youngster Koby Evans now under investigation for yet another alleged homophobic slur in the VFL,[14] the tenth such known incident in approximately three years, it is little wonder that no current AFL player has felt safe enough to come out, and reveals how entrenched this issue is within the sport.

A standard no other workplace accepts

The Board's reasoning is all the more troubling when measured against how every other Australian workplace treats the same conduct. In Knowles v Health Secretary,[15] a NSW Ambulance officer was dismissed for a pattern of homophobic comments directed at colleagues. Like Collard, Knowles attempted to contextualise his language – he was merely "venting" in a stressful job. The NSW Industrial Relations Commission rejected this and upheld the dismissal.

In February 2026, the Victorian Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of a police detective over years of group messages containing derogatory, sexist and homophobic language, holding that the gravity of discriminatory conduct justified termination notwithstanding procedural imperfections in the process.[16]

In both cases, the employees lost their livelihoods entirely – not a portion of their season, but their careers. Those judicial processes did not treat career impact as a mitigating factor; they treated homophobic conduct as inherently incompatible with continued employment. Yet when an AFL player faced a suspension that might end his football career, the Appeals Board treated that consequence as a reason to soften the penalty. AFL players are employees, engaged under contracts that incorporate the AFL Rules and Regulations. If an ambulance officer or a police detective can lose their job for homophobic language with no reduction for career impact, a professional footballer who is a repeat offender should not be treated more leniently.

The tension between judicial independence and policy

The AFL was right to remove Houghton. An adjudicator who applied a standard fundamentally at odds with both the AFL's anti-vilification framework and Australian workplace law was not merely reaching a different conclusion within the system – he was applying the wrong framework entirely.

But replacing one person does not fix a system that allowed the decision to happen. Without binding precedent, the Appeals Board was free to disregard the escalating trend in sanctions. Without sentencing guidelines, perhaps including mandatory escalation for repeat offenders without extreme extenuating circumstances to the otherwise, appellate discretion remains wide enough to produce exactly this outcome again. And without a tightly defined standard of appellate review, any future Board could similarly substitute its own view of proportionality on the merits rather than confining itself to correcting errors of law or irrationality.

The AFL was right to disagree with the decision, and Houghton's removal signals the seriousness of that disagreement. But sacking the chair of a quasi-judicial body for delivering an unpopular decision creates its own problem. It undermines the independence of the Appeals Board, which is the very feature that gives the system credibility. Future Board members will know that their appointment is contingent on reaching outcomes the AFL finds acceptable, and that knowledge inevitably colours decision-making.

This exposes a deeper tension. The AFL has deliberately modelled its disciplinary system on judicial processes – with hearings, tribunals, standards of proof, natural justice obligations, and published reasons for decisions. But it also expects the Appeals Board to act in line with the AFL's own policies and perspectives. Those two things sit uncomfortably together. Judicial independence means adjudicators are free to reason without institutional pressure, but expectations for policy alignment mean they are not. The AFL cannot have it both ways indefinitely.

The resolution lies in structural reform, not personnel changes. If the AFL adopted binding precedent, the Board would be constrained by the escalating trend in sanctions rather than free to disregard it. If the AFL introduced more stringent sentencing guidelines, appellate discretion would be narrowed to a range that reflects the league's anti-vilification commitments. And if the standard of appellate review were tightly defined, confining the Board to correcting errors of law or irrationality rather than substituting its own view of proportionality, outcomes like the Collard decision would become structurally impossible rather than merely politically unacceptable.

Conclusion

The Collard saga has laid bare a system that is not fit for purpose. The AFL's response in publicly repudiating the Board's reasoning and removing its chair was the right course of action, but it is a band-aid over a structural wound which should never have occurred. The next Appeals Board chair will inherit the same vacuum unless the AFL builds the framework that makes decisions like this one impossible in the first place: binding precedent, structured sentencing guidelines, and a more narrowly defined scope of appellate review.  The sacking was necessary. Ensuring it is never necessary again is the harder and more important task.

References

[1] https://www.afl.com.au/news/1504410/league-terminates-appeals-board-chair-will-houghton-kc-after-lance-collard-hearing

[2] Ibid.

[3] https://www.afl.com.au/news/1493879/st-kilda-saints-lance-collard-learns-fate-after-two-day-tribunal-deliberations

[4] https://www.afl.com.au/news/1174025/st-kilda-saints-player-lance-collard-banned-for-six-games-after-using-homophobic-slur-in-vfl-match

[5]The AFL Administration - AFL.com.au

[6] https://www.afl.com.au/news/1503246/st-kildas-lancecollard-learns-fate-after-appealing-nine-game-suspension-for-homophobic-language

[7] https://www.afl.com.au/news/1503647/afl-statement-afl-appeals-board

[8]2026-AFL-Tribunal-Guidelines.pdf (page 6)

[9] https://www.afl.com.au/news/1503246/st-kildas-lancecollard-learns-fate-after-appealing-nine-game-suspension-for-homophobic-language

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] https://www.thedailyaus.com.au/sport/first-openly-bisexual-afl-player-27-08-2025

[13] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-26/brisbane-lion-leigh-ryswyk-becomes-first-openly-gay-afl-player/106496402

[14] https://www.afl.com.au/news/1513130/brisbane-lions-youngster-koby-evans-under-investigation-for-alleged-homophobic-slur-in-vfl-match

[15] [2022] NSWIRComm 1043.

[16] Chief Commissioner of Police v Gentner [2026] VSCA 22.